Political Trials And What Can They Tell Us About The Relationship Between Law And Politics - Essay Example

? What are ‘political trials’ and what can they tell us about the relationship between law and politics? Simply defined, a politicaltrial is any legal proceedings held in a court of law, which addresses political issues. The use of political officials in these trials is a crucial characteristic which differentiates them from normal court proceedings (Becker 1971, p.45). Sometimes, there are no political officials used in these trials. In such cases, the fact that these trials address political agendas becomes the differentiating factor (Aegis 2009, p.57). Political trials either fall in any of the four categories. This paper addresses the description of the four categories. Most of these trials fall in the partisan trial category. The partisan category is the most common of the four. The law defines the partisan trial as a trial in which criminal legal proceedings get sanctioned by a government in power with the hope of crushing any arising opposition. This helps to reinforce and consolidate this government’s power (Aristotle 2006, p.177). The officials chosen to try these cases are normally affiliates of the government. In addition, they tend to share the same ideologies with the government in question. Therefore, from these two characteristics defining these trials, it becomes rather obvious that political trials are unjust, discriminatory and biased (Stephen 2008, p. 176). Political trials are also common in totalitarian forms of governments, ruled by leaders who are dictators. These forms of government require docility from its subjects and unquestionable co-operation for it to function. Therefore, any form of disobedience noted among the subjects; be it passive or active, leads to setting up of courts by the government comprising of political officials. The government always emerges victorious in these trials because of the biased nature of the legal proceedings (Perry 1990, p.190). Karl Marx, a prominent, sociologist advances in his conflict theory that conflict results from the ruling class’ need to hold on to their power and rule over their subordinates (Christenson 1999, p.69). Marx’s theory helps to explain why a government in power sets up biased, criminal legal proceedings in the attempt to squash opposition from the subordinates. These trials instill fear through the consequences that result from the political officials’ ruling. A historical perspective provides examples of partisan trials. Adolf Hitler, Mussolini and Joseph Stalin among other dictators sanctioned many partisan trials during their reign. They used them to control their subjects (Grigsby 2011, p.77). Those found guilty received harsh, inhumane treatment. They served as examples to other subjects who wanted to oppose the existing government. Prosecution of religious and political rebels driven by their conscience and moral obligations to the cause they fight for and believe in; is another political trial. Unlike partisan trials, these trials’ main characteristic includes the trying of defendants with impartial court officials. These trails are also acutely sensitive and can either reflect negatively or positively on the government (Laughland 2008, p.256). For example, if the government publicizes the court proceedings, these rebels are likely to challenge the legitimacy of the laws they the government is accusing them of breaking, therefore, attracting a public spectacle. On the other hand, the government cannot look the other way and avoid dealing with the unlawful rebels. This is because the government’s subjects will perceive it as weak and incapable of proper leadership. Therefore, the government understands that the rebels driving force lies in their beliefs. It also considers the fact that they have many supporters making them hugely influential. Therefore, they pose a significant risk to the governments. Thus, the use of impartial court officials proves to be the best strategy the government can use. This is because it prevents future, negative public opinion which might work against the current government in the next elections. Flashing back on historical events that saw the failure of government from failing to adopt this trial methodology helps to serve as an example to current governments. For example, the prosecution of Socrates on charges of corruption of young minds by the doctrines he taught; stirred up unrest from intellectuals. Pontius Pilate’s prosecution of Jesus of Nazareth and the 1753 sentencing of John Zenger Peter on charges of seditious libel both caused upheaval between their supports and the governments. Nationalists challenging the government’s authority on issues such as its ability to represent their subjects; is the third category of political trial. The term nationalist refers to an individual who acts like the mouthpiece or spokesperson for an entire group of people connected by race, ethnicity, and gender among other issues. These trials call for nationality among a group of people. Therefore, these trials are almost similar to the second category, whereby, charges brought by the government against dissenters present themselves in a way that does not cause unrest among sympathizers. The government’s reason for prosecuting nationalists is to reaffirm their ability to govern their subjects. Despite the frequency with which nationalists are fond guilty by most courts, their loss serves to raise political awareness within a given country. For example, the 1922 Mohandas Gandhi raised awareness in India about the oppressive British government. Nelson Mandela’s prosecution on 1950’s got the world’s attention. The plight of Africans living in South Africa became a concern of the international community. International support helped to aid ended the apartheid regime in South Africa because of the selfless actions of Mandela. The trial of government leaders or the entire regime; is the fourth category of political trials. These trials arise when ruling governments lose their mandate to rule after displacement by a coup. Coups mostly originate from people’s rebellion against an oppressive government. The new government is, therefore, able to make a decision as to how it will treat the members of the old regime. They decide between offering the previous leaders clemency and prosecuting these leaders. In most cases, new governments opt for the latter. These political trials serve two purposes. They include; highlighting of the oppressive, inhumane qualities of the previous regime and underscoring the virtue of the new regime. They do the latter by tempering people’s cries for vengeful summary judgments of the previous leaders. For example, the Numberg trials in which 24 Nazi soldiers faced charges after the Allied powers won World War II. Political trials in general serve many functions. Firstly, they strive to strengthen the legitimacy of a ruling government. Governments feel threatened when subjects question their ability to rule over them. They, therefore, use these trials to set an example out of those facing prosecution charges, and, to reaffirm to their subjects its ability to lead them. Secondly, these trials serve to unite people against a cause. Most individuals facing prosecution charges have many sympathizers who share similar sentiments. Therefore, whether the courts find them guilty, their legacy still lives on through their supporters. An analysis of historical events shows clearly that the prosecution of a man or condemning a man to death does not put an end to his ideas. It further aggravates the situation, making it more volatile. Thirdly, these trails serve the function of raising people’s awareness about certain issues. Governments handle oppositions with matchless precaution to prevent them from getting out of hand. Political trials reflect the public’s and government’s views on certain issues. They can, therefore, work against or for the different parties. In most case, political trials lead to re-evaluation of issues by both sides. For example, a government facing opposition from its subjects opts to re-evaluate their leadership tactics. Alternatively, prosecution of a nationalist or a religious dissenter solicits the support of bystanders who must re-evaluate their values. This is because these trials serve to raise their awareness. The International Criminal Court (ICC) defines crimes against humanity as inhumane acts committed as a systematic attack directed towards a group of civilians (Boot 2002, p.127). The Rome Statute, authenticated by all signatory countries of the ICC outlines expectations that must be adhered to be all the signatory states. This ensures perpetrators of crimes against humanity solution for their inhumane acts (Jennifer, 2006). Crimes against humanity cases take a long time before they come to an end. They also attract the attention of international communities. Acts constituting to crimes against humanity include; murder, extermination, forceful deportation, enslavement, torture, rape, imprisonment and the crime of apartheid. It is necessary to note that, for these crimes to be considered as crimes against humanity, they have to be directed towards a large population (Hitchens 2002, p.79).Throughout history, the ICC has prosecuted many people in crimes against humanity. For example, World War I and II saw the commanders of Nazi troops faced charges in the ICC on crimes against humanity. War crimes, on the other hand, refer to violations of internationally accepted laws which are applicable during combat or war. They include; the murder, torture or imprisonment of prisoners of war, rape of civilians and unjustified destruction of cities (Tribunal 1945, p.99). For example, war crimes committed by German soldiers during the World Wars. The German concentration camps saw the mistreatment of prisoners of war by their captors (Olusanya 2005,p. 15). They tortured, starved, experimented on the POWs and in extreme cases killed them. Just like crimes against humanity, war crimes are prosecuted at the ICC (Information 1969, p.179). Guilt refers to feelings of regret arising from shameful situations. The law defines guilty individuals as those found liable to prosecution charges. It also considers a person who confesses to the charges as being guilty through self-incrimination (Stosny 2002, p.117). On the other hand, responsibility refers to an individual’s obligation towards their actions. It arises from an internal state and not from any external obligations (Brudholm 2008, p.130). Individuals taking responsibility for their actions normally do so because they feel entitled to answer for their answers. Laws hold people responsible for their actions. Under remarkably few circumstances does the law hold an individual accountable for other people’s actions, for example, an employer is answerable for his employees' decisions. However, this only applies if the employee is acting as a representative of the organization (Ross 1975, p.162). Law relates to politics in the following dimensions, either as a goal, means, or an obstacle (Cerar 2009, p.200). Therefore, law relates to politics as a goal in the following way. Politicians rely on legislative reforms as one of their campaign strategies. They promise the electorate in their manifestos that they intend to change certain legislation, which the public does not embrace. These reform agendas, therefore, conceal their political agenda while wooing voters all in the hopes of accomplishing their political agendas. Politicians might also promise to change undesirable aspects in existing legal institutions. For example, during elections, politicians might promise to fight corruption in legal institutions by hunting down all corrupt legal officials. In these scenarios, the law relates to politics as a goal (Minogue 2000, p.18). Political trials provide a forum in, which law can serve as a goal for political issues, for example, in the case of partisan trials. The goal of the political figures is to squash any form of opposition from their subjects by prosecuting offenders instilling fear in the rest. The unjust law courts set up by the governments ensure this happens. Secondly, the law relates to politics as a means to an end. Meaning, politicians use the law to justify their behavior and actions. Politicians’ comprehension of legislation revolves around the fulfillment of their self interests. They, therefore, implement legislation, which will benefit their endeavors. Politicians also ensure that the legislation they pass benefits their allies too. This is because successful politics relies on the ability of an individual to garner support from as many people as he possibly can (King 1993, p.106). Trading support for other favors occurs especially during the amendment of legislative processes. The politician chooses to support or refutes legislation; depending on the interests of their supporters. Political trials allow the law to relate to politics as a means to an end. For example, political leaders use these trials to reaffirm their authority by prosecuting religious dissenters and nationalists. Thirdly, the law relates to politics by functioning as an obstacle against it. The resulting situation ensures either one of the two; politics or law prevails over the other. In cases where politics prevails, politicians disregard the rule of law. The characteristics present in this situation include; increased levels of corruption among government officials and discrimination of subjects by political, authority figures. On the other hand, when law prevails over politics; the rule of law remains intact, and people like lawyers and other intellectuals strive to preserve the autonomy of legislation (Rubin 2007, p.198). For example, the rule of law prevails in electoral processes, whereby, legislation outlines the criteria to be met before an individual can qualify to run for any political office. It also ensures a fair and just electoral process. In this case, political trials ensure legislation functions as an obstacle to political issues, for example, political trials against a ruling government or a current regime. They help to ensure the rule of law prevails when dealing with previous political leaders associated with inhumane treatment of their subjects. In conclusion, political trials show how politics and law relate to each other. This helps an individual understand the implications these trials have on both the political rulers and the subjects they rule over. It can, therefore, be concluded that political trials mostly serve as government instruments of enforcing co-operation among its subjects. The government does this by instilling fear among its subjects. Despite this, the outcome of these trials varies. For example, prosecution of nationalists raises people’s awareness about different issues (Schaap 2009, p.156). They also unify those who sympathize with these nationalists. Hence, political trials can either bring negative or positive effects to parties involved in these trials. Therefore, law and politics co-exist either bringing peace or unrest to people. Bibliography AEGIS. 2009, May 26, Sunday, What are crimes against humanity? Retrieved from AEGIS Preventing Crimes Against Humanity: http://www.aegiestrust.org/Crime-against-humanity/what-are-crime-against-humanity.html Aristotle, W. E. 2006, Politics. Georgia: Echo Library. Becker, T. L. 1971, Political trials. California: Bobbs-Merrill. Boot, M. 2002, Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity, War Crimes. Washington: Intersentia nv. Brudholm, T. 2008, Resentment's Virtue: Jean Amery and the Refusal to Forgive. New York: Temple University Press. Cerar, D. M. 2009, May 28, Tuesday, The Relationship Between Law and Politics. Retrieved from Annual Survey of International 7 Comparative Law: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/annlsurvey/vol15/iss1/3/ Christenson, R. 1999, Political Trials: Gordian Knots in the Law. New York: Transaction Publishers. Grigsby, E. 2011, Analyzing Politics: An Introduction to Political Science. California: Cengage Learning. Hitchens, C. 2002, The Trial of Henry Kissinger. New York: Verso. Information, U. N. 1969, War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity: Decisions of the General Assembly 1968, Parts 35-964. Texas: United Nations Office of Public Information. Jennifer Trahan, H. R. 2006, Genocide, War Crimes, and Crimes Against Humanity: A Topical Digest of the Case Law of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Switzerland: Human Rights Watch. King, P. T. 1993, Thomas Hobbes: Politics and law. New York: Taylor & Francis. Laughland, J. 2008, A History of Political Trials: From Charles I to Saddam Hussein. Washington: Peter Lang. Minogue, K. R. 2000, Politics: A Very Short Introduction. London: Oxford University Press. Morris, H. 1961, Freedom and Responsibility: Readings in Philosophy and Law. Washington: Stanford University Press. Moss, G. 1979, Political trials: South Africa, 1976-1979. New York: Development Studies Group. Olusanya, O. 2005, Sentencing War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity Under the International Criminal Tribunal in Yugoslavia. London: Europa Law Pub. Perry, M. J. 1990, Morality, Politics, and Law. London: Oxford University Press. Posner, R. A. 1983 The Economics of Justice. New Jersey: Harvard University Press. Ross, A. 1975, On Guilt, Responsibility, and Punishment. California: University of California Press. Rubin, E. L. 2007, Beyond Camelot. Massachusettes: Princeton University Press. Schaap, A. 2009, Law and Agonistic Politics. New York: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Stephen D. Tansey, N. A. 2008, Politics: The Basics. Vieginia: Routledge. Stosny, S. 2002, April 27, Wednesday, psychology today. Retrieved from Anger in the Age of Entitlement: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/anger-in-the-age-entitlement/200805/guilt-vs-responsibility-is-powerlessness-vs-power Tribunal, I. M. 1945, War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity ... New York: Chicago Press. Read More